The CIA is a murderous organization that has overthrown democratically elected gov's and killed many, the Joint Chiefs in the past plotted to commit
crimes against innocent Cubans and Americans and US military.

They automatically becomes suspect, as any murderer would in a crime that he is near to.

Good luck "selling" that reasoning.

So if a murderer is present during a crime I guess you wouldn't suspect them.

Your reasoning is that the CIA is "automatically" a suspect because you claim the CIA is a "murderer".

"The conclusions of the 9/11 Commission that 19 Arab hijackers under the direction of Osama bin Laden hijacked 4 different airliners and crashed
them into WTC 1, 2 and The Pentagon, with the fourth failing to reach a target are not in dispute by Commission members.

Read these two extracts from an interview with Lee Hamilton.

Solomon: In retrospect, one of the criticisms that you level in this book "Without Precedent" is aimed at both the FAA and NORAD, both of whom
representatives testified before the Commission, and both of whom gave what to me - and I'm allowed to be much more impolite than you - sounded to me
like lies. They told you testimony that simply... the tapes that were subsequently.. that have subsequently been revealed, were simply not true.

Hamilton: That's correct.

Solomon: And it wasn't just lies by ommission, in some senses lies of commission, they told you things that basically didn’t happen. What do you
make of that?

Hamilton: Well, I think you’re right. They gave us inaccurate information. We asked for a lot of material and a lot of documentation. They did not
supply it all. They gave us a few things. We sent some staff into their headquarters. We identified a lot more documents and tapes, they eventually
gave them to us, we had to issue a subpoena to get them.

Eventually they told us we had the story right, they had it wrong, it took a while to get to that point, but we eventually got here.

Solomon: Now what happens when you get on to these [talk radio] shows, and you talk about that, and you get every - because you understand that
the landscape is now littered with that stuff. What do you say to all these reports that are coming in - constantly?

Hamilton: I think people do not sufficiently understand how complicated conducting a major investigation is, and how difficult it is, in an event of
this kind, to chase down every answer to every question, and... Look, I can go before any audience in America today and I can raise so many questions
about 9/11 - raise questions, not answer questions, raise questions - about the investigation. And everbody in the audience will walk out saying 'the
government misled us or lied to us.' It’s a very easy thing to do! I can raise questions about our own report!

Solomon: Like what? What would you raise?

Hamilton: Well, like I just said, about the 19 hijackers, we didn’t answer that question.

We had to tell that story as best we could, and we did, and we made a lot of judgments about the credibility of evidence. Were we right in every case?
I suspect not. Were we right in most cases? I think so.

I do not know at this point of any factual error in our report, that I would absolutely say 'we just plain missed it.' Now, maybe I need to review
it more carefully, but I cannot recall right now at this instance any fact that we just plain missed.

Solomon: Not that you got wrong, but the fact that was omitted?

Hamilton: Well, I know there were a lot of questions that we could not answer, with regard to FAA and NORAD and White House activity, and a lot of
other things, we just can’t answer 'em.

Solomon: Is there anything in retrospect.. I mean, your deadline was so tight, and you say that forced you to make some very tough decisions as to how
far ranging the investigation could be. In retrospect, if you'd had more time, what would you have investigated more thoroughly?

Hamilton: I would have, I think we spent - if I were critiquing the work of the Commission - I think we spent too much time on the question of access.
And I would have liked to have gotten that over with, say, in the first half of the Commission's work, so that we could have spent more time in
putting the story together, maybe trying to answer some of the questions you raise that I can’t answer - and polishing the recommendations.

But you don’t... everything doesn’t go like you want it to go, and we were fighting the question of access right up to the end of the
Commission's work.

At the risk of appearing unoriginal, you might want to ask yourself the implications of that.

You might want to describe how it contradicts my statement above. A good place to start is the Executive Summary which, it seems, you haven't
read:

This immeasurable pain was inflicted by 19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan. Some had
been in the United States for more than a year, mixing with the rest of the population. Though four had training as pilots, most were not
well-educated. Most spoke English poorly, some hardly at all. In groups of four or five, carrying with them only small knives, box cutters, and cans
of Mace or pepper spray, they had hijacked the four planes and turned them into deadly guided missiles.

Why did they do this? How was the attack planned and conceived? How did the U.S. government fail to anticipate and prevent it? What can we do in the
future to prevent similar acts of terrorism?

Blueraja, has it come to the point where wanting to know the Real Truth is un-American?
Just the fact that being a "Truther" is now tantamount (throughout the Establishment) to being a "Terrorist" shows that seeking and speaking the
Truth in the good ol' USA will be subject to ridicule, and eventually a reason for imprisonment.
Throw that theory you have out here and let's take a gander, or are you worried about ridicule?

I have never said that being skeptical of what occurred on 9/11 was tantamount to being a terrorist. If one advocates violence because they're
certain that they are right, this would be something that I'm strongly opposed to, and would be something deserving of imprisonment.
Thusfar the Truth movement hasn't provided any evidence of guilt- they've only pointed out areas in the "official story" they take exception to.
Till they(you) provide some hard facts, I will reserve my right to ridicule, just as you have your right to believe what you want. Freedom is great
huh?

The CIA is a murderous organization that has overthrown democratically elected gov's and killed many, the Joint Chiefs in the past plotted to commit
crimes against innocent Cubans and Americans and US military.

They automatically becomes suspect, as any murderer would in a crime that he is near to.

Could you show some examples where the CIA has worked against the interests of the USA? You make assertions about it being a murderous
organization(and I'd argue the use of that term), but in the scenarios you most likely are referring to, it has always worked in the interests of the
USA(i.e. supporting governments that weren't blatantly anti-American or were anti-Communist/Soviet, anti-extremist Muslim). To say that because they
did such things that they're automatically suspect in one of the most horrific acts ever perpetrated against the USA, is to me ludicrous. As for
the plan you're referring to with regards to Cuba, you do realize that all sorts of plans might be drawn up, some of which are approved, some of
which are dismissed as being ridiculous. You need to look at not only the context, but just how seriously something was taken into consideration(or
how likely it was to be executed). Part of that context might just be that during the Cold War where the Soviets were trying to base nukes 90 miles
off our coast, and the threat of millions of casualties were of concern, some outlandish ideas might have been thrown around. We obviously chose not
to persue that plan, and that plan didn't include wholesale murder of US citizens.

I don't know what comprehensive investigations you're referring to. Mayor Guliani gave orders that NO ONE, not even NTSB investigators or the FBI,
were to be allowed access to WTC ground zero even though it was clearly a crime scene and to add insult to injury, he ordered all of the steel beams
to be collected and shipped off to a foreign country to be melted down before anyone had a chance to examine them. The trucks carrying the steel beams
were equiped with GPS locators to make sure they didn't detour on their way to the ships and one drive was fired when he DARED to stop for coffee.
Debris was scooped up by construction equipement even though everyone knew that there were still bodies of firefighters and civilian occupants in the
wreckage. Those bodies were dumped along with the rest of the debris. WHAT WAS THE BIG RUSH?? WHAT SECRET HAD TO BE PROTECTED THAT REQUIRED THE
EVIDENCE TO BE DISPOSED OF? And while we're at it, I'd like to hear your explanation of why there were pools of molten steel at the bottoms of not
only the two towers BUT ALSO WTC 7, weeks after the event when it's obvious that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.

You claim to know the answers that 911 Truthers want, so here's your chance. Explain that if you can. If you can't then at least have the guts to
admit it.

You say you believe experts who support their case with evidence. Apparently experts who 'debunk' 911 Truth are believable but experts who support
it are not. You're hypocracy is stunning! Do you understand basic physics? Do you understand how absurd it is to contend that a building containing
thousands of tons of structural steel can collapse just as fast as a billiard ball dropped off the roof falling thru thin air? I haven't found ANY
expert, who can give me a reasonable explanation of how EVERYTHING in those buildings was pulverized into dust including furniture, computers, and
things made of metal (we know that due to chemical analysis of the white dust). HOW GULLIBLE CAN YOU BE?

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
Apparently experts who 'debunk' 911 Truth are believable but experts who support it are not.

Exactly. How are they just dismissed out-of-hand like that? Since JThomas thinks we're all nuts already, I guess he must think any scientists or
engineers who think the same thing just must be nutty, too, and not put a single further thought behind it.

Could you show some examples where the CIA has worked against the interests of the USA? You make assertions about it being a murderous
organization(and I'd argue the use of that term), but in the scenarios you most likely are referring to, it has always worked in the interests of the
USA(i.e. supporting governments that weren't blatantly anti-American or were anti-Communist/Soviet, anti-extremist Muslim). To say that because they
did such things that they're automatically suspect in one of the most horrific acts ever perpetrated against the USA, is to me ludicrous.

Here's a few books you might want to read, as you sound rather ill-informed about CIA covert ops:

Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire and The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy and the End of the Republic by
Chalmers Johnson

The Central Intelligence Agency has an almost unblemished record of screwing up every "secret" armed intervention it ever undertook. From the
overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953 through the Bay of Pigs, the failed attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro of Cuba and Patrice Lumumba of
the Republic of Congo, the Phoenix Program in Vietnam, the "secret war" in Laos, aid to the Greek colonels who seized power in 1967, the 1973
killing of Salvador Allende in Chile and Ronald Reagan's Iran-contra war against Nicaragua, there is not a single instance in which the agency's
activities did not prove acutely embarrassing to the United States. The CIA continues to get away with this primarily because its budget and
operations have always been secret and Congress is normally too indifferent to its constitutional functions to rein in a rogue bureaucracy.

Before slamming the author, here's his Wiki bio, which doesn't mention he also knows
whereof he speaks, as he was also working for the CIA's Office of National Estimates from 1967 to 1972.

Actually, the argument about the sad state of the 'movement' is valid, wherein no investigation has occurred within official government sponsored
channels to validate or invalidate anything stated by the commission or the NIST.
This of course invalidates nothing in the way of the objections of us kooks.

The strength in JT and Blue Raja's arguments boil down to - You haven't presented any new evidence nor invalidated that which has been proffered.

The flaw is that most want to challenge the intransigent nature of the claim, couched in tags like illogical, and you have to do something, and the
burden of proof is on You (meaning the dissenters).

You cannot convince them, they will not accept any data that was not squeezed out of the orifices of the government itself - so - by that token - you
can't gain ground in determining what would be 'acceptable.' These are the kind of approaches that lead to accept the things unless you can do
something to change them. Which would be what? When the strong point is that the 911 commission and the NIST stated this and that, it's like asking
the administration to pick someone to tell the story for them (which they did) and then saying that they said they told the truth so it must be true.
After all wouldn't CNN, NBC, ABC, FOX, and all the rest not have asked the tough questions? Sure they would have, they always do right?

I love the interview pieces especially where you ask someone 'you didn't lie did you?' and they say 'of course not' and there you have it -
independent verification that they are telling the truth.

Never mind science, conflicting testimony, contradictory documentation, overridden protocols, and the like - they have no weight - because it wasn't
'main streamed' into their psyche.

Time will tell - like it always does - remember the day that lives in infamy - Pear Harbor, we knew? Remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident, we
orchestrated it? Should I continue? Remember how the press was all over that - no? Go figure. So far, you could say the only time the US citizenry
has been pro-war was when they were lied to. And here are again - at war. Hmm, box-cutters and airplanes, the most well defended military structure
of the planet, hmmm, no jets to scramble, yeah, thermate; right.

Shall we continue to think that if YOUR sense of 'proper' methodology is THE rule to be obeyed? That the government has NO obligation to the people
(good one) they are not compelled to respond (another good one)?

The very fact that the one institution that should be focusing on this (the press) has been bought (with FCC blessing we might add) by the same
interests who circumstance. opportunity, and motive for malfeasance; raises flags in anyone who believes that their government is supposed to be
their ally, and not solely a representative of corporate interests - who seemed to have benefited from this episode from start to end.

But all this is pointless, there is no mechanism for balancing the debate because the objective is nonexistent. Whenever you get close they fall back
to the same non argument - loony - illogical - who says - where's the proof? interesting, your point is becoming clearer. no point.

Lee Hamilton's interview shows he believes the Commission was set up to fail; that right up to the end, he had trouble with access; and that the FAA,
NORAD and the White House lied or misled them.

Now, how can any report based upon such a unstable foundation be considered reliable? That's a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious.

It can't.

You are free to demonstrate that the 9/11 Commission did not come to the conclusions that I said it did, but you haven't.

Let me repeat:

What I wrote:

"The conclusions of the 9/11 Commission that 19 Arab hijackers under the direction of Osama bin Laden hijacked 4 different airliners and
crashed them into WTC 1, 2 and The Pentagon, with the fourth failing to reach a target are not in dispute by Commission
members."

Supporting my statement is the actual conclusion of the 9/11 Commission:

This immeasurable pain was inflicted by 19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan. Some had
been in the United States for more than a year, mixing with the rest of the population. Though four had training as pilots, most were not
well-educated. Most spoke English poorly, some hardly at all. In groups of four or five, carrying with them only small knives, box cutters, and cans
of Mace or pepper spray, they had hijacked the four planes and turned them into deadly guided missiles.

Why did they do this? How was the attack planned and conceived? How did the U.S. government fail to anticipate and prevent it? What can we do in the
future to prevent similar acts of terrorism?

The more accurate depiction would be in every instance that became public knowledge, there was embarassment. With regards to covert ops be they intel
or SOF, it's the failures that you hear about, while the successes go unsung. Your response didn't show the CIA to be working counter to US
interests though, or likely to be involved in the mass murder of US citizens.

Let's say that hypothetically speaking a Truther manages to debunk every single "official story" claim. They still need evidence if they're gonna
try to show what "did" happen, if they're gonna try to assign guilt, whether it be foreign or domestic. JT and myself simply have not seen this
evidence to suggest that we should believe the current administration is guilty.

The more accurate depiction would be in every instance that became public knowledge, there was embarassment. With regards to covert ops be they intel
or SOF, it's the failures that you hear about, while the successes go unsung. Your response didn't show the CIA to be working counter to US
interests though, or likely to be involved in the mass murder of US citizens.

Was the overthrow in Iran led by FDR's son in the early 50s a success? Installing the Shah led to the clerics taking over and Iran-Contra and the
treason of Reagan and Bush 1 secretly peddling our enemy arms to fund the secret CIA wars in Latin America. And finally to the Iran hysteria you have
today.

Well if that "success" isn't working counter to US interests, what is?

Of course you can also find numerous examples of govt's conscious disregard for human life in the use of troops being exposed to atomic blasts and
fallout, unsuspecting populations being exposed to biological agents, '___' experiments, MKUltra, etc.

Let's say that hypothetically speaking a Truther manages to debunk every single "official story" claim. They still need evidence if they're gonna
try to show what "did" happen, if they're gonna try to assign guilt, whether it be foreign or domestic. JT and myself simply have not seen this
evidence to suggest that we should believe the current administration is guilty.

You're definitely right on that. But instead of trying to assign blame (which seems to get everyone's hackles up) how about just trying to find out
what DID happen. I mean, metallurgical analysis indicates that it WASN'T the jet impact or fuel that "CAUSED" the structural free-fall collapse.
Engineering 'root cause' analysis shows the pancake theory to be an inappropriate So what did cause it? You mean I can't ask unless I know the
answer?

I know there have been witnesses who heard rapid fire explosions all over the building. I know that no one can 'officially' explain the molten
metal smoldering for days on end. I know that the 'angle cut' steel can be seen in the documentation of the wreckage. But you don't hear that; or
you dismiss it off hand as illogical (based on what logic you have never revealed).

I'm not trying to start an insurrection here, I'm only saying there seems to be an unreasonable amount of inertia to overcome just to get a few
obvious nonsensical claims made in the reports and official 'comments' explained, or corrected.

Dude, I know this is a gratuitous statement to make but I was in the real life intelligence community for many years, I know about certain processes
and protocols that HAD to have been deliberately short-circuited to have allowed such a catastrophic failure to occur. No one will explore them
because of 'national security' which could be said to be the administrations religion at this point.

While I appreciate a good debate as much as the next person, your counter arguments have been somewhat less than constructive.

You are honestly going to say that the CIA had NO MURDEROUS HAND in all the deaths of innocents in IRAQ? Which include Children and Women???

Also, if this isn't proof of something, it surely shows that the powers that be couldn't give dime about 9/11.

All they wanted was IRAQ, even after 9/11 and even on the day, there has been numerous reports of Rumsfeld and others talking about IRAQ at that
time!

Yes, the CIA is a murderous organization that has engaged in overthrowing gov's in one military coup after another and setting up regimes that have
incredible blood on their hands. Guatemala is just one example.

Furthermore, in the past the U.S JOINT CHIEFS PLANNED fake terrorism all for a WAR!

Maybe its time that the Gov become transparent and stop hiding behind "IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY".

Because in our day and age, everyone knows what everyone else has anyway.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.